Why do GW alarmist deny natural Climate variability?

Question

http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/~atw/yr/2009/wittenberg_grl_2009.pdf

Seems that establishing magnitude and duration is a rather large indeterminate factor.
Your thoughts.

Answer 1

They listen to liberals.

Answer 2

Rio,



I’m not aware that any ‘GW alarmist’ has ever denied natural climate variability. Can you provide ANY evidence to back up your claim. If you can’t then you’re just making pointless and meaningless accusations.



How about “Why do GW deniers deny natural Climate variability”? Is that a valid statement, is it a rational question to ask, or is it just worthless drivel?



A quick Google of my past answers reveals that I’ve discussed natural variability and cycles about 500 times; clearly no denying that nature is also a factor. In the interests of impartiality, how many times have you discussed the role that humans play? Or are you going to fall victim to your own line of questioning by failing to demonstrate objectivity or rationality?

Answer 3

It’s clean international warming/climate exchange is actual. It’s the two clean the > modern-day < warming cycle has been occurring simply by fact the final ice age and that’s why the Sahara grew to become into grassland 10,000 years in the past yet is barren region on the instant + has been barren region for hundreds of years. the fact the present warming style began long formerly there grew to become into any industry and whilst there have been infrequently any human beings is physically powerful information people at the instant are not the reason. It additionally potential people at the instant are not the answer. The Earth is going by consistent climate exchange cycles and has accomplished so throughout the time of its history. the right mechanism isn't nicely understood yet seems to be touching directly to the sunlight + image voltaic interest. be conscious that the Earth is plausible on the tip of the present warming cycle and could start up cooling quickly (“quickly” in geological words). all the carbon tax/carbon offset BS is in basic terms theft or extortion disguised as technology. international places like China and India enjoyed the belief of carbon taxes/carbon offsets – yet in basic terms whilst they might faux to be “undeveloped”. as quickly because it grew to become into referred to the two are undesirable polluters of > each style < they unexpectedly weren’t so prepared on the belief. in basic terms the international Left and international places like North Korea & Zimbabwe nonetheless love the belief of carbon taxes. The Left loves the belief simply by fact they are committed to destroying the West often and the rustic especially. Getting the progressed international to wreck its own commercial base is something they choose. Having the West concurrently provide loose guilt-money to international places like North Korea & Zimbabwe could in basic terms make it extra effective. regrettably, scientific examine has been compromised by the politics of the placement. the academic community leans a the style to the Left, so researchers who “instruct” human-led to international warming (AGW) are rewarded with extra provides, yet researchers who don’t “instruct” AGW locate themselves decrease off. The politics of the venture are a venture simply by fact we actually do might desire to appreciate how the Earth works so one can assume, assume, and regulate. We additionally might desire to cut back truthfully pollutants it fairly is poisoning our atmosphere, and international places like China & India shouldn’t get a loose experience.

Answer 4

Natural variability doesn't demonize capitalism. I mean seriously, who's going to vote to give up their freedom and pay higher taxes if the warming trend from the end of last century is indistinguishable from others before it.

Answer 5

They are suffering from heroitis. They want to be the hero's that are taking a stand against the evil corporations and saving the planet. They want this so much, that they ignore the data which shows only moderate to small changes in temps for faulty computer models which have not been able to predict squat. You will not take this delusion away from them easily. They believe they have a foe to vanquish and their self-worth is wrapped up in this belief.



Paul's Alias, You should actually look at Hiroshima now. Also take a look at Detriot. You can tell that politics has a much more deleterious effect than an A-bomb. It is truly scary. Maybe giving the government more and more power is not such a good idea.

Answer 6

Baccheous doesn't notice when someone is obviously trolling for funding wanting to investigate how ENSO is caused by AGW and vice versa. The reason they deny natural climate variability or to be more precise, the reason they exaggerate natural climate stability, is so they can exaggerate human influence.

Answer 7

Look at this issue from a different perspective. The BP oil leak has been going on for 80 days. But Everyone Agrees it must be stopped ASAP, yet we are unable to stop it. Working on it are BP, countless universities, the EPA, US Navy, US Coast Guard, NOAA, OSHA, Department of Interior (MMS), US Fish & Wildlife, and ships from many nations, and many state agencies.



Now we go to GW. According to a new 2010 poll of 21 issues, Americans decided GW was last on the list. The consensus is STOP work on GW.

http://pewresearch.org/databank/dailynumber/?NumberID=954



There has been no debate in Congress over this, and the last vote on the Kyoto Treaty was when Bill Clinton was president, and the Senate voted 100 - 0 to NOT sign the treaty.



Its interesting that Al Gore, the main GW proponent, and Noble prize winner is described as an excellent debater.

"Gore emerged as America's most lethally effective practitioner of high-stakes political debate."

http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/2000/07/fallows.htm



But Al Gore refuses all debates on GW.

Gore dodges debate, 2007

http://www.ideasinactiontv.com/tcs_daily/2007/09/gore-dodges-repeated-calls-to-debate-global-warming.html



March 09, Gore refuses to debate Czech President on GW

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123673142035289763.html



April 09, Democrats refuse to let GW skeptic testify in DC

http://www.climatedepot.com/a/429/Report-Democrats-Refuse-to-Allow-Skeptic-to-Testify-Alongside-Gore-At-Congressional-Hearing



GW alarmists will deny natural variability because they do not care about consensus, debate, or science. Look at the BP spill, now look at GW. Even if GW (no consensus) was occurring, do you really think we could stop it? There is universal consensus to stop the BP leak, but its been 80 days, and we still can't stop a leak in a pipe! GW is all about expanding governments with our tax money. If you don't believe me, just ask Al Gore.

Answer 8

HI,

No it is a wrong information.

Answer 9

No, no, no, you've got it wrong.

When it's freezing cold, it's just weather, don't be so silly as to think that it's got anything to do with the Earth maybe getting cooler.

However, one of the posters here, (yes you know who you are) stated that last year's deaths in France during the heatwave was absolute proof of Global Warming, couldn't possibly be weather, could it.

To summarize:

It is cold=AGW.

It's hot=Agw.

The wind blows=AGW

The Aral sea dries up=AGW.

Snow on Mount Kilimanjaro melting=AGW.

Overfishing killing corals=AGW.

Tosh.

Answer 10

They don't deny natural climate variability. They deny things can be associated with natural climate variability where all the evidence points toward natural climate variability definitely not being the cause of warming or cooling trends according to the evidence. Deniers accept natural climate variability by magical unknown means.

Answer 11

Al Gore was asked the same question at a Global Warming Conference in Washington D.C. several months ago. His only response was "SQUEeeeeezZE mmaaa second Chakraaaa.....'til.....the juice runs down my LEG!!!"

Answer 12

They don't! Climate variability is a huge part of the study of climate. The ENSO in particular causes huge swings and was the reason behind the hot peak in 1998. It is those ignorant of climate studies who try to claim that warming stopped in 1998 and it was the Met Office explaining for years that the peak in 1998 was caused by the strong El Nino. If you had been reading in this forum for awhile you would have seen my explaining several times that huge increase this year was largely caused by the diminished La Nina pattern and moderate El Nino. Even though the earth had warmed one-half a degree in just one year, I explained several times that most of that was caused by the El Nino.



Climate scientists say over and over again that you must look at longer trends, typically of 30 years or so. We know there are cycles of the sun and ocean currents that affect climate. But we also know that greenhouse gases are causing ongoing warming. That has been explained in this forum scores of times and elsewhere thousands of times.



The study you cited btw even acknowledges there are anthropogenic forcings on the ENSO, meaning that some of the variability attributed to ENSO is caused by human activity.



The author, Andrew Wittenberg, with others further discussed that the ENSO is being changed by global warming in May of this year in Nature Geoscience.

http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n6/abs/ngeo868.html



So you cite a guy who not only calls for a better understanding of the effect of the ENSO on global warming but who also has concluded that global warming is affecting the ENSO. If you believe Andrew Wittenberg is a researcher worth paying attention to, they by all means pay attention to him.

Answer 13

<>



When I try to explain that the heat waves in Hiroshima and Nagasaki in August 1945 could easily be explained by climate variability, the liberal elitists look at me like I am crazy--they refuse to accept the variable nature of climate, and instead look for anthropogenic causes.



Like you, Rio, I am not intimidated by consensus.

Answer 14

I have never heard anybody deny natural climate variability. Do you have anything to back up your statement that people are denying this or is this just a strawman argument?

Answer 15

How does your reference - an article examining variability in a natural system - demonstrate denial of natural climate variability?

Answer 16

Because to some GW is a cause not a science.

Answer 17

they dont